Reblogged
from jaynelinney:
Rarely if ever have I read anything that has made me physically sick; this
morning I came across a Government Report via fellow blogger johnny
void that openly calls for “Residential Training is intended to help
unemployed adults with disabilities, particularly those at risk of exclusion
from the job market, to secure and sustain employment or self employment”
which to my mind describes nothing more than a workhouse.
Reading through this
Report I went from Hot to Cold and back again as I rationalised the
contents, from the executive summery to the Recommendations. The emphasis
throughout is to stress the ‘benefits’ of the Residential
element and attempts to demonstrate how that could apply to people on Work
Programme which “provides support, work experience and training for up to 2
year” and Work Choice for people “ disabled and find it hard to
work“.
The report also repeatedly recommends how this Residential programme might
particularly suit people with “people with mental health issues” so
much as the authors find it necessary to link unemployment rate figures against
differing mental health ‘issues’ “phobia, panics, nervous disorders (14%
employment rate) and depression, nerves/anxiety – (33% employment
rate)“!
I suppose in order to provide a fair analysis I must also note the reports
willingness to be inclusive, therefore I also note the authors desire to ensure
this Residential training is also open to those the DWP deem to be
“non-disabled people who are long term unemployed”. Although this
is because “the unit cost of provision would then be driven
down” rather than the programme suiting these potential trainees.
I can not here begin to offer a full analysis of this Report
but I strongly urge you to take a look and if you can’t bear to read it all
at least read the the 3 Case Studies which focus on opiate addiction and mental
health issues, Scoliosis, Asthma, Autism, Aspergers, ADHD and Depression
and severe mental health issues, alcohol abuse and long-term unemployment; these
alone demonstrate the ‘type’ of individual the authors feel ought to be in
Residential programmes, and then tell me this isn’t a case for a return to the
Workhouse??
